Current:Home > StocksHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -WealthStream
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-17 13:18:19
The Supreme Court decided 6-3 and 6-2 that race-conscious admission policies of the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution, effectively bringing to an end to affirmative action in higher education through a decision that will reverberate across campuses nationwide.
The rulings fell along ideological lines. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion for both cases, and Justice Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh wrote concurring opinions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has ties to Harvard and recused herself in that case, but wrote a dissent in the North Carolina case.
The ruling is the latest from the Supreme Court's conservative majority that has upended decades of precedent, including overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022.
- Read the full text of the decision
Here's how the justices split on the affirmative action cases:
Supreme Court justices who voted against affirmative action
The court's six conservatives formed the majority in each cases. Roberts' opinion was joined by Thomas, Samuel Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The chief justice wrote that Harvard and UNC's race-based admission guidelines "cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause."
"Respondents' race-based admissions systems also fail to comply with the Equal Protection Clause's twin commands that race may never be used as a 'negative' and that it may not operate as a stereotype," Roberts wrote. "The First Circuit found that Harvard's consideration of race has resulted in fewer admissions of Asian-American students. Respondents' assertion that race is never a negative factor in their admissions programs cannot withstand scrutiny. College admissions are zerosum, and a benefit provided to some applicants but not to others necessarily advantages the former at the expense of the latter. "
Roberts said that prospective students should be evaluated "as an individual — not on the basis of race," although universities can still consider "an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise."
Supreme Court justices who voted to uphold affirmative action
The court's three liberals all opposed the majority's decision to reject race as a factor in college admissions. Sotomayor's dissent was joined by Justice Elena Kagan in both cases, and by Jackson in the UNC case. Both Sotomayor and Kagan signed onto Jackson's dissent as well.
Sotomayor argued that the admissions processes are lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
"The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment enshrines a guarantee of racial equality," Sotomayor wrote. "The Court long ago concluded that this guarantee can be enforced through race-conscious means in a society that is not, and has never been, colorblind."
In her dissent in the North Carolina case, Jackson recounted the long history of discrimination in the U.S. and took aim at the majority's ruling.
"With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces 'colorblindness for all' by legal fiat," Jackson wrote. "But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life."
Melissa Quinn contributed to this report.
- In:
- Affirmative Action
- Supreme Court of the United States
veryGood! (54321)
Related
- A Mississippi company is sentenced for mislabeling cheap seafood as premium local fish
- Memphis police officer shot and wounded during traffic stop, official says
- Uvalde families denounce new report clearing police officers of blame: 'It's disrespectful'
- The NYPD is using social media to target critics. That brings its own set of worries
- North Carolina trustees approve Bill Belichick’s deal ahead of introductory news conference
- Halle Bailey tearfully calls out invasive baby rumors: 'I had no obligation to expose him'
- Rape survivor Brenda Tracy to sue Michigan State, Mel Tucker for $75 million in damages
- Friday is the last day US consumers can place mail orders for free COVID tests from the government
- Behind on your annual reading goal? Books under 200 pages to read before 2024 ends
- Alabama Republicans push through anti-DEI bill, absentee ballot limits
Ranking
- Dick Vitale announces he is cancer free: 'Santa Claus came early'
- Who was the designated survivor for the 2024 State of the Union address?
- Sister Wives' Christine Brown Honors Kody and Janelle's Late Son Garrison With Moving Tribute
- Nigeria media report mass-abduction of girls by Boko Haram or other Islamic militants near northern border
- Person accused of accosting Rep. Nancy Mace at Capitol pleads not guilty to assault charge
- Floridians can ‘stand their ground’ and kill threatening bears under bill going to DeSantis
- Women’s mini-tour in Florida changes to female-at-birth policy
- Whoopi Goldberg, 68, says one of her last boyfriends was 40 years older
Recommendation
Could your smelly farts help science?
TEA Business college’s token revolution!
At Northwestern, students watch climate change through maple trees
Love Is Blind's Jess Confronts Jimmy Over Their Relationship Status in Season 6 Reunion Trailer
'No Good Deed': Who's the killer in the Netflix comedy? And will there be a Season 2?
Prosecutors in Trump classified documents case draw sharp distinctions with Biden investigation
Norfolk Southern alone should pay for cleanup of Ohio train derailment, judge says
New Mexico halts some oil-field lease sales in standoff over royalty rates in Permian Basin